Case of Kjartan Ásmundsson v. Iceland, Application no. 60669/00, Judgment 30 March 2005). The planned social insurance budget economy in this context is commensurate with the consequences of economic recession – the deficit in the State budget and the overall decline of economic activity in Latvia compared to the showings for 2008. Even if the information furnished by the Ministry of Welfare confirmed that the total economy attained as a result of the implementation of Article 3, Paragraph One of the Disbursement Law was approximately 12.7 million lats for the period from July to September 2009, i.e., for 6.2 million lats less than the economy planned for this period of time (see Case materials, vol. 13, pp. 45-47), all in all, the Constitutional Court had no grounds to call into question the fact that the impugned provisions had helped reduce the expenditures of the State social insurance special budget, correspondingly facilitating the balancing of revenues and expenditures. Therefore, the impugned provisions can help achieve the legitimate end. 30. The Constitutional Court also had to determine whether the legitimate end – the balancing of the social insurance special budget – could be attained by other means, less restricting the rights of individual persons. It means determining whether there is an appropriate balance achieved between the need to attain the end and the means used toward the attainment of this end (see Langa, p. 36). The measures imposed by the State must be commensurable with both the financial crisis and the interests that these measures affect (see Jackman M., Porter B., Canada, in Langford M. ed., Social Rights Jurisprudence. Emerging Trends in International and Comparative Law, Cambridge University Press, 2009, p. 219). 30.1. The Saeima and the Cabinet of Ministers have repeatedly referred to the liabilities towards the international creditors as one of the substantiations for the adoption of the impugned provisions. That is, it follows from the information furnished by these institutions that the adoption of the impugned provisions is related to the fulfilment of the requirements of the international creditors. In contrast to that, the summonied parties admitted that they do not possess any information concerning the international creditors requesting the reduction of pensions established by the impugned provisions (see Case materials, vol. 9, pp. 119, 204 and 205). They attested just the opposite, namely, that the international creditors did not 46